Nom de guerre: Rivrdog

A little culture help, please

OK, I crossed culture lines and went to an upscale, very hip Martini Bar yesterday. Actually, I'm renting the establishment to throw a swank cocktail party for my youngest daughter, who is graduating from Oregon Health & Sciences University Medical School 6/3, and starting her medical practice there (as an Intern, then Resident Doctor, in OHSU's Trauma-Level ER on 6/15). So, if you get shot, knifed or run over on the west side of the city, she might very well be the first one asking you if it hurts. Heh-heh, EMT joke from the old days.

At the upscale, very hip Martini Bar (in the upscale, very hip Pearl District of Portland), the hip patrons (and the publicans as well) all sport various forms of piercings of the face and wherever else, and tattoos.

Lots of tattoos. It's "Portland Ink" down there in the former industrial district.

The gal who took our drink orders on the sidewalk had most of her entire upper body tattooed. The Pink Gin I had was delicious, and so was the look of her chest.

So, here's the question, and it crosses cultural lines:

Is it OK to stare at a lady's tattooed chest long enough to appreciate the form and the art of the intricate tattoos thereon?

Of course, your blogger has mastered the deceptive male head-turn maneuver, wherein my head turns so as to appear to be breaking the gaze, but the nystagmus of my eyes still tracks the object of interest, giving the appearance that I'm NOT staring at those womanly attributes. The VariLux darkening eyeglasses make this maneuver almost foolproof out of doors.

I don't think I should have to use the head-turn maneuver though. I think that if a lady has a bountiful AND artfully-decorated bosom, I should be able to openly hold my gaze on it. Especially if she's a publican in a rather revealing peasant blouse.

Here's my rationale. It is, of course, improper to stare at a lady's chest, per se (the chest itself). However, isn't it also impolite NOT to appreciate art that someone has gone to considerable time, money and pain to be able to display? I say the appreciation factor outweighs the older custom of politeness.

What say you?

Hype of the Year Award

Goes to the "online men's magazine FHM" which dares to tell me who the "sexiest woman of the year" is. What a complete load of crap. They present a list of skanks who couldn't spell "sensuous", let alone have any of that elusive quality.

Put it another way. If she is listed as the hottest of the hot, the men doing THAT rating would be impressed by an iceberg.

MY idea of hotties? I don't do the amount of research as he does, but Kim DuToit seems to have the category nailed on his blog.

The NRA I can't abide

This is crap.

This is schlock.

This work is better suited to selling magazine subscriptions, or driveway sealer, or miracle cleaning sprays.

The man hasn't been in his grave long enough for the dirt to settle, and the NRA is already out with a selection of memorial items bearing his name, image and lifespan. All overpriced, of course.

But is there a collection of his artistic works for sale on that site? None of his movies are, because the NRA would have to share the revenues from them with others. His book is, a very small grace that does NOT save the NRA from my accusation of blatant hucksterism.

For shame, NRA. If you need money, ask us for it (oh, right, you already do).

Charlton Heston was a great actor and a greater man, and the NRA had the extremely good fortune to have him as a leader and spokesman for a time. It would certainly be appropriate to memorialize THAT era in some permanent way, but the NRA forgets, at it's peril, that it doesn't OWN "Charlton Heston, the brand", so rushing out branded merchandise of whatever quality not only is tasteless in the extreme, it might bring on a conflict with Charlton Heston's heirs, which could wind up costing the NRA more than it ever took in.

Bad taste and bad business sense all rolled into one glittering package. NRA, you've managed to top even your insurance-sales schemes this time.

Comments are open. Let the "but they need the money to save our guns" wailing begin.

Hmmmmpf. It isn't the contents of my gun safe that needs saving. I have the training, resources and motivation to do that myself. It's the words and the thought encapsulated here that needs saving.

How did I miss THIS?

Egad! Two months late and definitely a dollar short here, but, better late than never.

You. Must. Read. This!

Note to self: when it's time, send a copy of my death poem to Michelle Malkin and ask her to write my eulogy....

H/T to the EllTee for sending me Miss Malkin's great letter.

Discussion of Race

I saw this on a blog I hadn't read before, referred from a blog which I read every day:

"It's not cool to be TOO white in school (emphasis added)."

I stopped reading blogs at that point, and just pondered for a while. Here's my stream-of-consciousness take on that line. Let's assume it's true for the next few points.

• If it's not cool to be white, it must be more cool to be of color, right?
• If it's "cool" to be of color, then we must be "celebrating" some accomplishment of colored people, right?
• Since this is all about students in school, then the school administrations must be directing it, or, at least, not quashing it.
• Racial pride is firmly quashed if it is about white pride (no, not just the Aryan Nations kind, the kind which celebrates accomplishments of white people as well). The schools just do not trust students with having the judgment to be able to sort out the good accomplishments from the bad accomplishments (and that's giving the administrations credit they may not deserve. The problem may be deeper and more disturbing than that.).
• On the other hand, if a student adopts mannerisms popularized by colored peoples, wears clothing popularized by colored peoples, talks in pidgin dialects like some colored peoples, and adopts an intimidating demeanor characteristic of angry, radical colored peoples, that student is either encouraged or not told to change.

OK, I'll answer these points now.

• The answer to the first one is yes, it's definitely "cooler" to be of color.
• No, they are not necessarily celebrating anything, they just want to be "cool", just like the latest movies, music etc tells them to be.
• Actually, no, the school administrations aren't directing it, they are "going with the flow" because they don't have the collective spine to stand up to what Hollywood and the music moguls put out as "cool factor". Yes, they aren't quashing it.
• True story. Racial pride IS quashed if celebrates ANY coolness that reflects pride in the white race.
• True story. Racial pride is ENCOURAGED, not quashed, if it reflects any "coolness" about colored peoples.

So, to sum up, what are we doing here, in our educational establishments?

• We are discouraging the development of critical thought processes, which are the cornerstone of a quality education.
• We are giving a free pass to people of color who, on balance, are a negative force in cultural development. In school, we are never critical of people of color unless they have crossed a very obvious line, i.e. Michael Vick.
• OTOH, in school, we are CONSTANTLY critical of white people who have committed no other sin than supporting the defense of their country on foreign shores, before the enemy gets here and blends into the population.

Quod Erat Demonstratum: that which was to be demonstrated, was demonstrated: The racial awareness policies of our education establishment offer us nothing less than a threat to our survival, both as a culture and as individual citizens.

Discuss in comments, as you desire, but with all the maintenance of civility as demonstrated by my above post.

Snitching, a great Orwellian custom

In George Orwell's "1984", we had a good look into the future. Orwell wrote the book in 1948, believing that it would only take 35 years for the British government to reach the totalitarian state described in the book. The book has since become a standard example of the nemesis of overbearing government. If you don't have time to read it, there a fine Wiki here.

In the book, informing to the government on the habits of those around you was the norm, because the government ran every aspect of it's subject's daily lives.

Many of those of us who project active opposition to this standard of government believe that the government does not need to know every detail of our lives, in fact, the Constitution states that enumerating the people every ten years in a national census is the only way were are to be known to the government. That standard went out the window several generations ago, and we now have government intrusion as a fact of life.

The fact that government is intruding, relatively unchecked, into our daily lives does not make it correct or legal under the Constitution. In fact, when most avenues of intrusion are challenged in court, the government is usually forced to withdraw the intrusion method which was challenged.

Over the years, the government has appealed to us citizens to turn in various lawbreakers, such as drunk drivers. It has appealed to us because of actual danger (drunk drivers) and also because it wants to be more Orwellian.

A fine example of this Orwellian excess is Washington State's current anti-littering campaign. Littering is a civil offense for which there is no incarceration possible, only a fine (except in cases of Gross littering where it's a misdemeanor). Littering is an annoyance to our society, nothing more. If you toss a disposable water bottle out of your car window, you have annoyed me, but your annoyance doesn't rise to the level of a crime.

Rather, it didn't before now.

Washington now want us to immediately report (snitch) on anyone we see littering in public. They have provided a toll-free number to do that, and they have left us with the impression that Law Enforcement will drop everything, respond to your report of a litterer, and rush over immediately to cite that person into court.

First of all, it's a lie. Law Enforcement is NOT going to drop everything and rush to pinch litterers, there aren't enough cops to do that. The few that still work in the Socialist State of WA can't even cover felonies in progress, let alone civil infractions like littering.

So, it's all bulltwaddle, and we recognize that, but we ask ourselves why. Why would the government lead us to believe that it will bear down on litterers with a ferocity comparable to the long-established campaign against drinking and driving?

There is only one possible explanation.

The government wants us to get used to snitching on each other, so it sets up a "straw-man" snitching program.

The Orwellian Standard. We're closer than you think to complete totalitarianism.

Sports begging

In the past 10 years or so, sports marketing has drastically changed in this country. Turn on any major league sport you choose, and I guarantee that in the pre-game blather, you will hear an appeal for some charity or foundation that either the league or some wealthy super-star in the league is sponsoring.

It's getting nauseous. When I turn on my TV to watch a game or a race, I want to watch that sport, not some endless schmooze on how upstanding the league, team or players are because they supported XYZ charitable cause. Anymore, though, I don't have a choice, if I want to catch up on team stats, I need to get a sports paper or go to a sports website, because a good portion of the airtime in the pre-game discussions will be devoted to begging.

It's gotten so bad that NASCAR is involved. Stock car racing (which hasn't raced "stock" cars for 20 years) is so involved with their charity du jour, "Autism Speaks", that the order of the pre-race activities had to be changed to allow for begging in front of the huge crowds at the racetracks.

I suppose the more charitable among you readers will say I'm over-reacting to all this, and to answer you, I have but two words: Michael Vick.

In case your memory is worse than mine (hard to imagine THAT), you should be able to recall that animal-abuser Vick initially tried to buy his way out trouble with an offer to donate millions to an animal charity. Now, his lawyer wouldn't have made that offer if he didn't think it had a chance of succeeding.

The Mrs. went to a Portland Trailblazers game last night (NBA in case you don't follow pro-basketball, or more accurately, professional bastardy). Portland played the ever-tough LA Lakers and beat them, but the Mrs. came home with a beg offer from a charity that one of the coaches has set up.

Look, I'm not against these charities, I'm against mainstreaming begging into our culture. Anyone who wants to be charitable can give as much as they want, and I can't speak for you, but any charity which has to resort to sports figures selling it's cause is trying too hard.

And NO, HELL NO, sports figures who indulge in their favorite forms of gangsterism cannot absolve themselves by donating money to a charity. In my opinion, that just makes them slightly-less-rich gangsters.

City of San Francisco, an outlaw Government

On these pages and elsewhere, a continuing debate tries to define the point when a government crosses the line from Constitutional governance to Un-Constitutional governance.

It seems appropriate to say such a line has been crossed when a government directly urges not only the ignoring of Constitutional laws, but actually spends government money to insure that those laws are broken.

Today, that is the case in the City of San Francisco, where the City Commissioners (or do they call themselves "Councilors"?) just ordered the expenditure of $83,000 tax dollars to fund an advertising campaign to "reach out" to illegal aliens and tell them that they will be safe from lawful arrest and prosecution for immigration crimes within the City Limits, and that the City will spend money to support them.

This is not simply "looking the other way" on immigration crime, as most government officials from President Bush on down have done, this is a deliberate attempt to have MORE such crime committed.

The Government of the City of San Francisco has, by it's own considered actions, become an outlaw regime.

That government must now be removed. It is completely appropriate for a Militia to form for the purpose of said removal. Since there is every likelihood that such removal would be resisted by deadly force, it is also appropriate that this Militia be armed and trained to be able to resist the forces preventing the removal of the Government of San Francisco.

Good luck, Citizens!

History lessons

Bored silly? Too much time on your hands waiting for Al Gore's winter to end (and it might not)?

Take keyboard in hand (or pen and paper, either works for me), and take this little assignment:

Compare and contrast: The French and American Revolutions. Points awarded according to how many salient points are brought out, so bullet-point format is optimal.

This is my answer to shooting at flies printed on paper targets, because if that training in handgun or rifle accuracy is to be put to any good use, one must know WHY and WHEN those talents might be needed.

Some references here, here, here, for the French Revolution, and here, here, here for the American Revolution (that last Wiki is applicable to both Revolutions).

This is really an exercise in thinking about conflict and it's origins, but I figured that it couldn't hurt to toss in a little history and some of the original philosophy that led us to where we are today (or are SUPPOSED to be today).

Above all, enjoy the exercise of your mental processes, and the satisfaction which will come afterwards. Post in comments, or leave a link there to your own blogs or Facebook or whatever.

How to be a Barking Moonbat

Ah yes, Moonbat 101, the Economics version.

Or maybe we should call this Communism 101, or would just plain Airhead 101 be better?

In any case, Professor Soledad O'Brien of CNN (Commie News Network) was at the lecture podium, trying to make Lou Dobbs look conservative last night.

The subject was the purchase of the investment house Bear Stearns & Co by the large banking house JP Morgan Chase.

The facts are that the Federal Government did not want Bear Stearns to go bankrupt, as they were about to, so they asked JP Morgan Chase to buy the company by purchasing all the shares for $2.00 each. Now, Bear Stearns equities had been trading at $30 last Friday, and the sale was announced on Sunday at $2, raising plenty of eyebrows, including mine, at first. However, Bear Stearns had been in a bad way for some time, and had hidden that condition from it's shareholders, who were about to get a VERY nasty surprise regardless of the tender offer.

The Fed then made some temporary rule changes which permitted JP Morgan Chase to make the purchase, so there is no argument that the Fed was directly involved in the sale.

Enter Moonbat Soledad O'Brien (is she related to the occasionally-funny Conan O'Brien?). She's discussing the purchase with Lou Dobbs, who is what passes for a conservative at CNN. I guess he is conservative because he wears a US flag pin in his lapel, heh. BTW, Ms O'Brien was wearing reddish-orange on St. Patrick's Day, so I know that, at the very least, she pissed off the Anarchangel. OK, I digressed, so sue me.

Next, as the discussion between the two luminaries proceeds, we get a commercial break, and when the break is over, CNN flashes a graphic to re-introduce the program, and the graphic says "Bailout Rage".

Now, I consider myself fairly well informed, for an ignoramus who barely passed bonehead Econ in college, but I haven't heard that there was any "rage" about the Fed trying to save the economy (they're too late, but that will be another story). In fact, this "rage" against the Bear Stearns purchase (it was not a "bailout", or Bear Stearns would still be in business under their own management, and they're not) is a complete fabrication by Soledad O'Brien. She then went on to lamely opine to the flabbergasted Lou Dobbs that it's SOOOOOOO wrong for the Federal government to "bail out" Bear Stearns and not bail out individual mortgage borrowers. In fact, as the conversation wore on, the commie vixen could not be moved by the basic Econ 101 that Lou Dobbs was trying to throw at her, and ramped up her rhetoric to the faux-rage level, denouncing the government in her commie style.

I have a clue for Soledad O'Brien. If she thinks HER job and HER overblown salary will survive this nation entering into a major depression, she's in for a rude surprise. When CNN has to shrink dramatically in such a depression, as all the entertainment industry will (Praise God when that happens!), Soledad O'Brien will be among the first shown the door.

"Bailout Rage"? Well, Ms. O'Brien, there's a good chance that one of your commie buddies, either HRC or Obama, will inherit the reins of power this fall. We'll see how well THAT brand of economics does during a worldwide depression. Remember that Communism couldn't save the Soviet economy during the good times, and that regime collapsed.

My financial advice? Buy guns, buy ammo for the guns, and buy practice time at your local range to practice with the guns, because it doesn't really matter whether John McCain or either of the Socialists gets power, any of them will have to deal with a severe Depression, and the internal unrest which will come with it, and SO WILL YOU AND I.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to clean my own rifle, as I DID practice with it yesterday, and I DO have to go out and replace the ammunition I shot up while practicing.